Every particularist agrees that Christ's death has effects for all men.I'm not sure what you mean by "unlimited atonement" here (and misunderstandings about the extent of the atonement in the reformed tradition are legion), but Davenant and co. would have eschewed holding to something like that. They believed that Christ secured the complete salvation of the elect in his death (including their faith). However, they also believed that Christ's death had reference to all humanity, but in a different sense to that of the elect.
I mean by universalist that belief that Jesus died for all men whoever.
It says nothing about Christ dying for every single man, it only says he died for the sheep.
That's like saying a black man can sign a document in good faith that says "White men are intelligent, and America was made for them." When the black man's friends say, "Hey, why did you sign that?" He responds, "Oh, I could do so in good conscience. You see, they didn't say that Black men were not smart, and they didn't say that America was only for white men."Precisely. They didn't make a ruling on it but left it open and this enabled Davenant and co. to sign in good faith. They could well affirm:
More than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole words says nothing about Jesus dying for them. His death was enough. If one more person had been predestined, Jesus would not have had to suffer and longer, harsher, or again.Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility
However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.
Dordt does't say that. He played loose and fast with the facts, lied to himself, and *that,* not the wording of Dordt, was what alloed him to sign in good conscience.Davenant argued later that Dort taught: Christ died sufficiently for all and efficiently for the elect. He believed that was the best way to make sense of all the Biblical data.
The best question, would a full on 4-pointer have written Dordt that way? How come every single 4-pointer I read must make it PLAIN that Jesus did not die "just for the elect." That he died to allow for the salvation of all men, if only they would come by faith.
So, the very fact that a 4-pointer *would not* have written Dordt et al in that way, serves to deliver a strong blow against 4-pointer revisionism.
But, as I said, it matters not since the Bible plainly teaches a limted atonement in the doctrine of Jesus' death as the death of a high priest for his people, interceeding for all those he atones for.
God didn't provide the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the blood of lambs. Why thik he provides modern Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the death of The Lamb?